Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Samuel S. Smith and Grover Lamar Lee, A/K/A Poss

594 F.2d 1084

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1979-05-09
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • extending Houltin to conspiracy convictions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 and 21 U.S.C.A. § 962(d)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Samuel S. Smith and Grover Lamar Lee, A/K/A Poss. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SMITH,594 F.2d 1084(5th Cir. 1979)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SAMUEL S. SMITH AND GROVER
LAMAR LEE, A/K/A POSS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 77-5387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 9, 1979.
Eugene Loftin, Jacksonville, Fla. (Court-appointed) for Lee.

James L. Harrison, Jacksonville, Fla., for Smith.
John J. Daley, Jr., U.S. Atty., Curtis S. Fallgatter, Asst. U.S. Attys., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; John A. Reed, Jr., Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion January 17, 1979, 5 Cir., 1979,588 F.2d 111)
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, GODBOLD and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The Government has filed a petition for rehearing in this case, insisting that the Court based its reversal of appellant Lee's conviction on errors of law and fact. In response to one of the points raised in the petition, we add clarifying language to the first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 1191so that it reads:
The Court should have explained that in order to secure the conviction of a particular defendant, the Government had to prove two distinct things: (1) that a conspiracy began in late July (and continued through November 16, 1976) and (2) that as part of the common scheme, that defendant knowingly became part of and participated in the conspiracy.


[2] As modified, our opinion stands; the petition for rehearing is DENIED.Page 3
  1. 588 F.2d 111,119. ↩